http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
IT WAS ONLY this year that I heard for the first time of the scourge called
estate tax. You knowóthe one that takes up to a 55% chunk out of a personís
already-taxed life savings which he was planning to leave to his progeny so
he might rest in peace.

I heard this, and rageórage from the depths of my American soulówelled up in
me. It just struck me as fundamentally wrong.

Naturally, the president likes it and last week vetoed a 10-year phase-out
plan for the tax, just as heíd promised he would. But the issue is a hotly
contested one, and will resurface with the next administration.

I myself am heir to no oneís grand estate. My parents are immigrants who
lived a middle-class life and now live even more modestly as retirees. Iíll
never inherit more than a negligible estate, tax-wise.

Now, election-time tax issuesóor anytime tax issues--have never caught my
attention. I donít know from taxes. They confuse me. But this was simple
enough to understand. And I understood it to be unjust.

For that reason, a recent front-page headline on the Forward newspaper
caught my eye. It read: "Loss of Estate Tax Could Cost Charities Billions."
The article defended the 86 year-old gift tax on inherited estates as a
motivator of the very rich to make charitable bequests.

In other words, donít repeal the law, because itíll eliminate a perk that
comes with robbing the rich.

The piece went on to criticize Republicans for portraying the death tax as
"an injustice that affects the family of every hard-working person who dies"
rather than the estimated two percent of Americans whom it actually affects.

So if only two percent of the people are getting robbed, I suppose that
makes it ok.

Ah, canít you just see the Feds already salivating over the thought of Bill
Gates kicking the bucket? His heirs will have to sell off all their
Microsoft stock just to pay the taxes. Imagine the jubilation! Itís a wonder
they havenít ordered a hit on the guy yet.

But it's not just Bill Gates. Itís not even just family farms and small
businesses. I have several friends, all from separate families, who are
heirs to estates of one to two million. And I know people who have even more
such friends. Not to mention all those law firms I temp at, where crews of
attorneys regularly pull 48-hour shifts. I would guess their estates to
reach at least two million before theyíre through. It certainly feels like
more than 2% of the population.

Critics like the Forward condemn the move as an assault on a more
fundamental principle: progressivity in the federal tax code.

"Taxes that fall heaviest on those with the most money have been a basic
tool of government for a century," read the Forward. Similarly, the New York
Times called the progressive tax on income "a cornerstone of 20th Century
American society."

Sticking it to the rich is a cornerstone of 20th Century American society?
Robbing the rich is a progressive idea? Joseph Stalin was also considered a
progressive idea. In fact, the same newspaper that brought us the image of
Uncle Joe wants us to keep redistributing private wealth. Our red flags
should be going upóno pun intended.

As recently as the Carter Administration, the highest tax bracket was paying
70% of its income to the government. Under F.D.R. it was 90%. If that isnít
highway robbery, nothing is. Itís not just the ninety or seventy percent
figure; itís the very concept. Taxes by nature hit harder on those who earn
more. Thatís how percentages work. The rich do pay a proportionately larger
share of the taxes as it is. Weíre asking them to pay a disproportionate
share.

So should they pay a higher sales tax too? Sure! The IRS could issue
everyone a card identifying their household income, and cashiers will have a
corresponding tax chart to refer to. For that matter, I think a Big Mac
should cost me only $2, but rich folks $45.

Because taking money from the rich can only be a good thingóeven if it gets
lost in politiciansí pockets or bureaucracy on its way to "The People."

I seem to be missing this age-old tradition of contempt for the rich, shared
by so many of my fellow human beingsóand by big government (outside its own
ranks, of course). I donít know about others, but my parents raised me not
to look into other peopleís wallets.

While I admit Iím not particularly an advocate for the poor or the
uninsuredóthose heavily touted heroes of the Democratic Conventionónor am I
an advocate for the rich. Iím an advocate for whatís fair. In this case it
puts me in the position of defending the rich, which isnít exactly
politically correct.

But eliminating the estate tax isnít a vote for the rich or against the
poor. Itís a vote for a just
society.